Given the brevity of this segment, it does a reasonable job of conveying the basic findings of a study appearing in The Lancet: that women taking birth control pills have a reduced risk of ovarian cancer, and the protection persists even after the pill is stopped.
This is a significant study whose findings are not particularly controversial, so a simple description of the findings is adequate.
Even in such a brief segment, however, viewers would have been better served with:
Costs of the pills may not be significant, but because the implication of the story is that women may now and in the future consider oral contraceptives because of this newly-found benefit, cost is an important consideration – and was not covered.
The report mentions that taking the pill for five years or more can reduce ovarian cancer risk by half, and that protection can last a lifetime. This is an overly simple summary of the results.
Viewers would have been better served by a few more details, such as how many women per 1,000 taking the pill would be expected to get ovarian cancer compared to those who did not. It is not difficult to include a line about absolute risk information.
The segment properly mentions the birth control pill’s occasional side effects of blood clots and a slight added risk of breast cancer.
The Lancet study (summary here) upon which the segment is based is a meta-analysis of many epidemiological studies conducted worldwide over several decades. While the broadcast does not provide much detail about the methodology, it describes it adequately.
The facts used to describe ovarian cancer–22,000 cases per year and 15,000 deaths–are accurate and dramatic. But without context, they may exaggerate the relative impact of ovarian cancer. Nonetheless, we’ll give the story the benefit of the doubt on this.
The segment quotes one independent expert from the American Cancer Society twice. Another source should have been used.
The segment focuses on findings about oral contraception and cancer risk, so discussion of other options for birth control or ovarian cancer risk reduction are not necessary.
The anchor lead-in reminds us that birth control pills are "widely used by a lot of women."
Birth control pills are widely used, so no claims of novelty are made.
There is no evidence the segment relied solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like